Bijoy Malakar, who is an MLA from the Ratabari constituency in Karimganj district, made the alarming remarks during a public event, promising evictions of those who don’t vote for BJP. This is not the first time a BJP MLA has threatened to demolish people’s houses. In January, the newly elected MLA and Cabinet Minister of School Education & Panchayati Raj Department in Rajasthan, Madan Dilawar also threatened protesting teachers to have their houses demolished if they did not behave appropriately with students. 

Evictions and demolition of homes have become common in recent times. In 2023, Sabrang India reported that over 2500 Bengali-speaking Muslims were evicted and rendered homeless after a demolition drive in Assam. Similarly, in January this year, a 55-year-old Muslim man died from the cold after he was evicted from his house with his family. His family called it a state-led ‘murder.’ 

As Assam goes to polls in the upcoming Lok Sabha elections, these remarks have ignited strong reactions across the state, with criticism against the ruling party. Karimganj will witness polling in the first phase of the election on April 19. The choices are between BJP leader Kripanath Mallah, AIUDF leader Sahabul Islam Choudhury, and Congress leader Advocate Hafeez Rashid Ahmed Choudhury. 

Hafiz Rashid Ahmed, an INC candidate and Senior Advocate at Gauhati High Court, condemned the statement and termed it as a violation of electoral conduct rules, calling for appropriate action to be taken. He further stated that the use of bulldozers for evictions has become a contentious issue in Assam, particularly under the tenure of Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, with thousands of people reportedly displaced in recent years. This threat by the BJP MLA has raised concerns about the political climate and the tactics employed during elections.

Earlier a Scheduled Caste seat, but after the last delimitation exercise Karimganj is now an open seat. Karimganj has a large population of Muslims, who form about 56 % of the total population. On-ground observers note that the party is making efforts to bring down the opposition by resorting to such tactics. 

Assam #BJP MLA #VijayMallakar threatens people with bulldozer action if they don’t vote for his party.

The legislator from #Ratabari made these remarks while campaigning for BJP MP candidate #KripanathMallah.#LokSabaElections2024 pic.twitter.com/rOQktFzGgw

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) April 17, 2024

Assam goes to vote in the first, second and third phase of the Lok Sabha elections. April 19 will see Kaziranga, Sonitpur, Lakhimpur, Dibrugarh, Jorhat and go to polls, while Darrang-Udalguri, Diphu, Karimganj, Silchar, Nagaon and Kokrajhar, Dhubri, Barpeta, Guwahati will vote on April 26 and May 07 respectively. 

This speech by Malakar comes as CM Himanta Biswa Sarma recently posted on X, formerly Twitter, that they “don’t do politics of ‘Hindu-Muslims.” However, just a few days earlier, the sitting CM stated that there is nothing wrong with “polarisation.” According to ETV Bharat, the CM was on an election campaign for the BJP leader in Kaki in Lumding on April 14, when he said, “I always do religious polarisation. What is new? There is nothing wrong with that. Because what is my religious polarisation – there will be no insult to Hindus. If it is called polarisation, then I will polarise. Is it religious polarisation to raise a voice for the rights of Hindus?” The BJP leader is also known for giving incendiary speeches. Sabrang India noted that he gave 3 hate speeches during the election campaign for multiple poll-bound states in 2023. 

Related

Assam: After taking an oath to uphold Ambedkar’s Constitution, the BJP CM invoked the Gita to promote caste-based occupation  

CJP brings relief to a family’s struggle for their lost identity in Assam

Assam: Bharat Jodo Nyay Yatra faces attacks, Congress demand judicial investigation

The post BJP MLA threatens “JCB Bulldozer” if voters don’t vote for BJP appeared first on SabrangIndia.

We the Wonderful Cows of India
With a population of 19 crore
Worshipped in the name of Gau Matas
Do not have rights of our own

Despite being provided with Aadhaar card
And being upgraded to that of a divine symbol
We do not have right to vote
In a regime which is cow friendly

At a time, when we should be getting ministerial positions
Including the governance of the country
We lack even basic right to vote
This is a pure hypocrisy in the name of cow friendly Government

Despite so much talk of Cow
And initiation of Cow Ministry
We are denied this right
At a time when we could have decided the electoral fortunes of the country

At the crucial moment in cow history of India
When we have been brought to centre-stage of politics
We demand a role in governance in the country
And basic right to vote

When we have gained citizenship through Aadhaar card
We demand basic citizenship rights as guaranteed by the constitution
And here we demand
Universal Cow franchise in the country that is Bhaarat

Long Live Cow unity

TH Sreerama is a Poet and retired from Central Warehousing Corporation

Courtesy: Counter Current

The post Poem: Right to Vote demand by Cows appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Look at the state of the world’s democratic nations, and it is easy to see why so many are concerned for the future of democracy.
 

shutterstock.

Leaders such as Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Vladimir Putin and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán have centralised political power by changing their countries’ constitutions, silencing dissent and controlling the media. Since 2016’s coup attempt in Turkey, Erdoğan’s government has used the subsequent state of emergency to incarcerate thousands without trial. Opposition politicians, judges, journalists and academics have been thrown in jail – all following a successful referendum that saw the office of president shed many of the restraints of parliament. The recent presidential elections then returned Erdoğan to office, albeit with the slimmest of majorities.

Given this climate of fear and censorship, the people cannot be said to have voted freely. But the fact that they did vote raises a fundamental question: can an electorate vote democracy away?

The people have spoken … sort of

First of all, there are important distinctions between general elections and constitutional referendums, and each comes with its own set of democratic dangers.

In Turkey and the UK, narrow referendum results have endorsed fundamental constitutional change. But these referendums are not, like general elections, exercising the democratic right to select leaders. Instead, they are making complex governmental decisions that often require understanding of specialist information, way beyond what could reasonably be expected of an ordinary person. Voting on such questions – usually concerning fundamental long-term change – ought to, and often does require a super majority. Otherwise, as we can see from the 52/48 split in the UK’s Brexit vote, the results can be highly contentious.

Some Turks have heralded the threat to their democracy. shutterstock

General elections do not require super majorities, and the government is formed from whichever party captures enough seats to command the legislative assembly, or, in a proportional system, the opportunity to lead a coalition. Frequently, the popular vote is not reflected in the number of seats a party wins. In Hungary, Orbán’s Fidesz party won 49% of the vote, but 133 of the 199 available seats. In the US Hillary Clinton gained more votes overall, but lost the presidency under the electoral college system.

These divergences are well-established, and when elections are contested between two moderate parties trying to appeal to the middle ground (as has been the case across Europe for many years), such anomalies have not caused too much instability. But in today’s more extreme, divergent political climate, a greater number of governments could emerge that are divisive and extremely unstable. When there is enough support for the extremes, they can be elected against the wishes of the majority of the population, leaving the ordinary voter faced with “democratically elected” leaders whose policies they vehemently oppose.
 

Tale as old as time

Napoleon III was elected in 1848, but declared himself emperor four years later. shutterstock

The concept of electorate-mandated autocracy goes back as far as the modern democratic state. In his Eighteenth Brumaire, Karl Marx lamented the election of Napoleon III in 1848 that led to him declaring himself “emperor” in 1852. Marx observed how easy it was for an already centralised power to centralise further, and remove the institutions that might stop it from doing so. He lamented too, how easy it was to adopt a “heroic” personality, and to strategically appeal to the interests of specific groups of people in order to win an election. The appeals are of course hollow, but they can harness the support of those seduced by charisma and strength.

To suggest that electorates deliberately, or consciously vote for autocracy is another matter. The standard explanation is that people know not what they do – that they are swept up in a desire to be part of something greater than themselves. This is partly true, but there are certainly those that support autocracy and hold extreme views. When these elements represent a significant enough minority they can sometimes sweep enough people into their narratives to elect an extreme leader whose views do not represent the body politic.
 

More than a vote

But even in a vote with high turnout, an electorate free of disproportionately powerful minorities, and a legislative assembly aligned entirely with the popular vote, the results of an election could be wholly undemocratic. An election, to hold validity, must be “free and fair”.

Many recent votes have been blighted by constraints on the press, manipulation of social media and data (note the Cambridge Analytica story), and defamatory campaigns that have strangled the free flow of information. Targeted attacks on those representing “the establishment” (such as George Soros during the Hungarian elections), destabilise the moderate views and institutions associated with them, and foster a divisive “us and them” mentality.

A float in Prague’s Labour Day procession protests the degradation of Eastern European democracy. shutterstock

The institutions that structure political power and authority can also easily be centralised, particularly in moments of recognised stress, such as war or a state of emergency. These provide a reason or excuse for consolidation of executive power, allowing the governing class to make decisions without having to go through regular legislative channels. And once in place, these can be difficult to reverse. Turkey’s state of emergency, the US Patriot Act and Britain’s Prevent legislation are all examples of the power states have acquired to act without regard for due process.

Turkey’s presidential elections, and its presidential referendum, were not democratic because the state had already become autocratic. Rather, they were exercises in projecting an image of democracy, since states that run elections are popularly assumed to be democratic. In reality the vote was not free, so the people did not “vote against” democracy.

Democracy is about more than just voting. It is about freedom of speech, the separation of executive from legislative power, judicial independence, and political equality. Democratic institutions exist to keep power from becoming centralised in a single, despotic location. Once these institutions begin to weaken, and the only remaining element of democracy is the pretence of elections, then democracy in its meaningful form is already gone.

Powerless votes perpetuating pre-existing autocracies are barely votes at all. And a democratic vote that votes against democracy, probably wasn’t very democratic in the first place.

Manjeet Ramgotra, Senior Teaching Fellow in Politics and International Studies, SOAS, University of London

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The post Can democracy vote itself out of existence? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

7 जजों की सविधांन पीठ ने फैसले में कहा कि प्रत्याशी या उसके समर्थक धर्म, जाती, समुदाय और भाषा के नाम पर वोट मांगते हैं तो यह गैरकानूनी होगा।

सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा,  चुनाव एक धर्मनिरपेक्ष पद्धति है। इस आधार पर वोट मांगना संविधान की भावना के खिलाफ है। जन प्रतिनिधियों को भी अपने कामकाज धर्मनिरपेक्ष आधार पर ही करने चाहिए। आने वाले पांच राज्‍यों में इसका असर होने की संभावना है।

कोर्ट ने यह फैसला हिंदुत्व मामले से जुड़ी कई याचिकाओं की सुनवाई के दौरान दिया। इसके तहत सवाल उठाया गया था कि धर्म और जाति के नाम पर वोट मांगना जन प्रतिनिधित्व कानून के तहत करप्ट प्रैक्टिस है या नहीं।

इससे पहले सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता तीस्ता सीतलवाड़ ने एक याचिका में कोर्ट से हस्तक्षेप की मांग की थी जिसमें कहा गया था कि धर्म और राजनीति को मिलाया नहीं जाना चाहिए और धर्म और राजनीति को एक-दूसरे से अलग करने के लिए निर्देश जारी किया जाना चाहिए।

The post सुप्रीम कोर्ट का ऐतिहासिक फैसला: चुनाव में धर्म, जाति के नाम पर वोट मांगना गैरकानूनी appeared first on SabrangIndia.